conquest of bread
(1892 first print) by peter kropotkin..
notes/quotes from (1906 pdf version) 127 pg from anarchist library:
don’t you think that there is some fundamental error in your understanding of human nature and its needs?..t
the history of mankind, thus understood does not offer an argument against communism. it appears on the contrary as a succession of endeavors to realize some sort of communist org.. endeavors which were crowned w a partial success of certain duration; and all we are authorized to conclude is that *mankind has not yet found the proper form for combining.. on communistic principles, agriculture w a suddenly developed industry and a rapidly gowing international trade..
*yeah that.. but the part\ial ness (and the already cancerized forms ie: agri, industry, trade) is perpetuating it (the death/dying of the dance).. today we have the means to leap.. and humanity needs a leap.. to get back/to simultaneous spontaneity .. simultaneous fittingness .. everyone in sync..
however when revival came.. about 1866.. when communism/collectivism once more came forward.. the conception as to the means of their realization had undergone a deep change.. ie: ‘emancipation of working men must be accomplished by working men themselves‘.. labour unions themselves would have to get hold of the instruments of production and org production themselves..
this revival of socialism lasted but a few years.. soon came the war of 1870-71 , the uprising of the paris commune.. and again: the free development of socialism was rendered impossible in france.. but a further step forward.. the movement was too short lived to give any positive result.. but historical significance.. they understood that the free commune would be henceforth the medium in which the ideas of modern socialism may come to realization.. the free agro industrial communes of which so much was spoken in 1848, need not be small phalansteries, or small communities of 2000 persons.. they must be vast agglomerations, like paris or still better, small territories..
yeah.. has to be all of us.. or it won’t last.. gillis on small scale et al
of course none of these may in any degree be taken as a sub for communism/socialism.. both of which imply the common possession of the instruments of production
again.. production not the point of human being.. actually part of the cancer..
but we certainly must look at all the just mentioned attempts as upon experiments.. which prep human thought to conceive some of the practical forms in which a communist society might find its expression..
sounds like dawn of everything (book) premise.. ie: see all the parts/partials of the elephant to realize it’s about everything.. and that nothing is (yet) the whole picture/dance
the synthesis of all these partial experiments will have to be made some day by the constructive genius of some one of the civilized nations.. and it will be done..
1 – our riches
the result (after all the success of human production et al) is that now the *child of the civilized man finds ready, at tis birth, an immense capital accumulated by those who have gone before him.. and this capital enable him to acquire, merely by his own labour, combined w the labour of others.. riches surpassing the dreams of he orient..
the methods of cultivation are known
rather.. methods of cultivation are cancer
climate is no longer an obstacle (invention of artificial heat, light, et al)
oi.. rather.. climate no longer a dance partner
we are *rich, far richer than we think.. in what we already posses.. richer still in the possibilities of production..what we might win from our soil.. from our manufactures.. from our science.. from our tech knowledge.. **were they but applied to brining about the well being of all
*rich in cancer.. which can never be used **to well being of all.. any form of m\a\p compromises/kills the dance..
it is because all that is necessary for production.. land/mines/highways/machinery/food/shelter/ed/knowledge.. all have been seized *by the few .. t.. in the course of that long story of robbery, enforced migration/wars of ignorance and oppression
not because taken *’by the few.’. rather.. because ‘taken’ ‘productioned’.. ie: even if we figured out a way for ‘taken by all’ ness.. the dance is already dead by the ‘taken/production’ ness..
take indeed a civilized country.. forests once covered cleared.. marshes drained.. climate improved.. made habitable.. soil which bore formerly only a coarse vegetation is covered today w rich harvests.. wild plants which yielded nought but acrid berries, or uneatable roots, have been transformed by generations of culture into succulent vegetables, or trees covered w delicious fruits.. 1000s of highways and railroads furrow the earth, and pierce the mtns.. rivers have been made navigable.. artificial harbors, laboriously dug out and protected against the fury of the sea, afford shelter to the ships.. deep shafts sunk in rocks.. underground galleries dug out where coal may be raised or minerals extracted.. at crossing of highways great cities have sprung up.. and w/in their borders all the treasures of industry, science, and art have been accumulated
via safety addiction et al
invention of each of these machines which embody the genius of man.. increase knowledge.. create atmosphere of scientific thought.. w/o which the marvels of our century could never have appeared..
not until 1000 of steam engines had been working for years before all eyes,.. could the insight of genius proclaim the mechanical origin and the unity of the physical forces.. and if we, children of the 19th cent have at last grasped this idea, if we know now how to apply it, it is again because daily experience has prepared the way.. thinkers of 18th cent saw/declared it.. but the idea remained undeveloped.. because 18th cent had not grown up like ours.. side by side w the steam engine.. imagine the decades that might have passed while we remained in ignorance of this law.. which has revolutionized modern industry
it has come about.. however.. in course of ages traversed by human race.. that all that enable man to produce, and to increase his power of production, has been seized by the few..
again.. not ‘by the few’ ness.. but the ‘taken’ ness.. the ‘production‘ ness.. that is killing us
the soil, the mines, machinery too, the railways.. as all belonging to the few
rather.. all part of cancerous production ness thinking
in virtue of this monstrous system.. the son of worker.. on entering life.. finds no field which he may till, no machine he may tend no mine he may dig.. w/o accepting to leave a great part of what he will produce to a master.. he must sell his labour for a scant/uncertain wage.. allowed to work.. et al.. he can find no better conditions.. everything has become private property and he must accept or die of hunger
he’s already enslaved to enslavement if thinking: work/till/tend/dig/produce et al..
the result of this state of things is that all our production tends in a wrong direction.. enterprise takes no thought for the needs of the community.. its only aim is to increase the gains of the speculator..
yeah.. wrong direction.. but not in way thought.. rather.. thinking about production/direction is wrong.. ie: this shows why coop thinking is assumed.. because it’s not about ownership/taken ness.. not about figuring out a way for it to be all ie: coops to take/own.. it still won’t work/dance if any form of m\a\p.. let go
a vast array of courts, judges, executioners, policeman and gaolers is needed to uphold these privileges; and this array gives rise in its turn to a whole system of espionage, of false witness, of spies, of threats and corruption
sermons preached on those who have should share w those who have not.. but as poetry not practice.. ‘to lie is to degrade and besmirch oneself..’ we say, and yet all civilized life becomes one huge lie.. we accustom ourselves and our children to hypocrisy, to the practice of double faced morality.. and since the brain is ill at ease among lies, we cheat ourselves w sophistry (use of false statements).. hypocrisy and sophistry become the second nature of the civilized man.. t
but a society cannot live thus; it must return to truth or cease to exist.. under pain of death, human societies are forced to return to first principles: the means of production being the collective work of humanity.. the product should be the collective property of the race.. all belongs to all
yeah.. the all.. that belongs to all.. is cancer.. so .. let go
all things are for all men, since all men have need of them, since all mean have worked in the measure of their strength to produce them.. *if man/woman bear their fair share of work, they have **right to their fare share.. and that is ***enough to secure them well being.. no more of such vague formulas.. as ‘right to work’.. what we proclaim is the right to well bing: well being for all
oi.. perpetuating same song you’re preaching against.. ie: we have no idea of legit needs.. only whale needs.. ie: *if strings attached.. fair share of work et al.. not for all; **red flag of right ness as cancer et al; ***we have no idea of enough ness or well being ness.. not about security
2 – well being for all
but have already made clear.. not for all.. and whale being as defined by whales ness
well being for all is not a dream.. it is possible, realizable, owing to all that our ancestors have done to increase our powers of production.. we know, that the producers although they constitute hardly 1/3 of inhabitants of civilized countries.. produce degree of comfort could be brought to every hearth..
oh my.. why still stuck.. production is both 1\ assumed good if we say ‘for all’.. and 2\ assumed good is actually cancer
thus.. although pop of england has only increased from 1844-1890 by 62% its production has grown at double that rate in france, in us.. et al.. still more striking.. multiplied wealth tenfold
reads production as the virus we need to listen to/for
so much for direct/deliberate limitation of production; but there is also a limitation indirect and not of set purpose, which consists in spending human toil on objects absolutely useless, or destined only to satisfy the dull vanity of the rich..
which today is all the things.. perpetuating sea world
it is impossible to reckon in figures the extent to which wealth is restricted indirectly, the extent to which energy is squandered.. that might have served to produce, and above all to prepare the machinery necessary to production.. ie: markets, officials of all sorts (to maintain sv); propaganda.. in forcing consumer to buy what he does not need.. what is squandered in this manner would be enough to double our *real wealth.. or so to plenish our **mills/factories a machinery that they would soon flood w shops w all that is now lacking to 2/3 of nation.. rather than sitting idel for 3-4 months a year..
oi.. rather.. easy if we realize it’s all.. we’re wasting all energies on *(not real wealth rather) sea world **(aka: machines et al)
no, plenty for all is not a dream.. no longer.. because man has invented a motor which .. w few pounds of coal.. gives him the mastery of a creature strong and docile as a horse.. capable of setting the most complicated machinery in motion.. but if plenty for all is to become a reality.. this immense capital.. *cities, houses, pastures, arable lands, factories, highways, ed.. must case to be regarded as private property.. for the monopolist to dispose of at his pleasure..
oh my.. like saying.. now all can freely access *cancer
no one imagines problem solved by means of legislation/govts.. we feel necessity of revolution.. we have all been studying the dramatic side of revolution so much and the practical work of revolution so little..
then goes on to explain revolution like creative refusal et al.. so govt still in charge.. still deciding how we spend our energies.. ie: fighting/countering rather than imagining/being..
the former govt having diappeared..
yeah.. not.. rather.. same song
to give selves an authority which is lacking they seek the sanction of old forms of govt.. waste time in wordy warfare.. form alliances in order to create majorities that can but last a day.. dragged into discussion abut trifles..
one could cast a reproach at the paris commune, which was born beneath the prussian cannon, and lasted only 70 days, it would be for this same error.. this failure to understand that the revolution could not triumph unless those who fought on its side were fed, that on 15 pence a day a man cannot fight on the ramparts and at the same time support his family..
great point.. but need to go deeper.. ie: fighting/protesting/et-al is an energy/time such
it seems to us only one answer to this question: we must recognize, and loudly proclaim, that every one, whatever his grade in the old society.. strong or weak, capable or incapable, has, before everything.. the *right to live.. and that society is bound to share amongst all, w/o exception.. the means of existence at its disposal.. we must acknowledge this and proclaim it aloud and act up to it..
it must be so contrived that from the first day of the revolution the worker shall know that a new era is opening before him; that henceforward none need crouch under the bridges, w palaces hard by, none need fast in the midst of food, none need perish w cold near shops full of furs;.. t that all is for all, in practice as well as in theory, and that at last, for the first time in history, a revolution has been accomplished which considers the *needs of the people **before schooling them in their duties..
but.. has to be *legit needs
and **sans any schooling/duties.. any form of m\a\p.. not just before or after
this cannot be brought about by acts of parliament, but only by taking immediate and effective *possession of all that is necessary to ensure the well being of all; this is the only really scientific way of going to work, the only way to be understood and desired by the mass of the people.. we must take possession .. in the name of the people.. of the granaries, the shops full of clothing, and the dwelling houses.. nothing must be wasted.. we must org w/o delay to feed the hungry, to satisfy all wants, to meet all **needs, to produce, not for the special benefit of this one or that one, but to ensure that society as a whole will live and grow..
*can’t be brought about by taking possession either.. we need a means that 8b souls already crave.. a means that undoes our hierarchical listening so we can org around legit needs **currently we have no idea what they are
enough of *ambiguous works like ‘the right to work’.. let us have the courage to recognize the well being for all hence forward possible.. must be realized..
*problem is not just ambiguous.. cancerous.. so can’t bring them up at all.. red flag city
very diff will be the result if the workers claim the right to well being.. in claiming that right they claim the right to possess the wealth of the community.. to take the houses to dwell according to needs of each fam; to seize the stores of food and learning the meaning of plenty, after having known famine too well.. and while asserting their right to live in comfort, they assert what is still more important, their right to decide for themselves that this comfort shall be.. what must be produced to ensure it, and what discarded as no longer of value..
the ‘right to well bing’ means the possibility of living like human beings, and of bringing up children to be members of society better than ours.. whilst the ‘right to work’ only means the right to be always a wage slave, a drudge rules over and exploited by the middle class of the future.. the right to well-being is the social revolution, the right to work means nothing but the treadmill of commercialism.. it is high time for the worker to assert his right to the common inheritance and to enter into possession
oi.. same song
3 – anarchist communism
‘by the means of money.. i (the individual) can buy all that i need’.. but the individual was on a wrong tack, and modern history has taught him to recognize that, w/o the help of all, he can do nothing, although his strong boxes are full of gold..
yeah has to be all.. but with money.. with any form of m\a\p.. on wrong track..
meanwhile new orgs, based on same principle.. to every man according to his needs.. spring up under a 1000 diff forms; for w/o a certain leaven of communism the present societies could not exist.. the tendency towards communism is constantly appearing, and influences our activities in a variety of ways.. the bridges, for the use of which a toll was levied in old day. not public property and free to all; museums, free libraries, free schools, free meals for children; parks and gardens open to all.. streets paved and lighted, free to all; water supplied to every house w/o measure or stint.. all such arrangements are founded on the principle: *’take what you need‘.. t
but part\ial ness won’t work.. and previous ie’s of communism.. not every man according to his needs.. rather.. every one according to assumed whale needs.. and still org’d by m\a\p ness.. and still have *no idea what legit needs are
there is a tendency .. to consider needs of individual.. irrespective os his past or possible services of the community.. we are beginning to think of society as a whole.. each part of which is so intimately bound up w others that a service rendered to one is a service rendered to all
when you go into a public library.. the librarian does not ask what services you have rendered to society before giving you the book.. or the 50 books you may require.. at st petersburng.. if you are pursuing an invention.. you go into a special lab where you are given a place, a carpenters’ bench.. all the necessary tools/sci instruments provided only you know.. and you are allowed to work there as long as you please.. there are tools; interest others in your idea, join w fellow workers.. or work alone if you prefer it.. invent a flying machine or invent nothing.. that is your own affair.. *you are pursuing an idea.. that is enough..
great para’s.. but don’t even need *this (pursuing ness)
on saving men you don’t know.. what need to know them ‘*they are human beings, and they need our aid that is enough that establishes their right.. (then on how it/communism spreads)
such a mix of good and cancer.. ie: still rights.. and needing others .. rather than dancing.. spot on on *this (nationality: human ness)
(on anarchy and communism).. and history shows us that these period of partial or general revolution when the govts were over thrown, were also periods of sudden progress both in econ adn the intelectual field
oh my.. signs of success as sign of cancer..
*all that was once looked on as a function of the govt is today called in question.. things are arranged more easily/satisfactorily w/o the intervention fo the state.. led to conclude that the tendency of the human race is to reduce govt interference to zero.. in fact. to abolish the state, the personification of injustice, oppression, and monopoly.. we have all been brought up from our childhood to regard the state as a sort of providence.. all our ed..et al.. accustom us to believe in govt and in the virtues of the state providential..
*if only.. we keep saying this.. but..
to maintain this superstition whole systems of philosophy have been taught; all politics are based on this principle, and each politician whatever his colours, comes forward and says to the people ‘give me the power and i both can and will free you from the miseries which press so heavily upon you’.. from cradle to grave all our actions are guided by this principle.. open any book.. the press teaches us the same in every conceivable way.. and yet.. as soon as we pass from printed matter; to life itself… as soon as we throw a glance at society, we are struck by the infinitesimal part played by govt..
sea world ness
these orgs, free and infinitely varied, are so natural an outcome of our civilization; they expand so rapidly and *group selves w so much ease; they are so necessary a result of the continual growth of the needs of civilized man; and lastly they so advantageously replace govt interference that we must recognize tin them a factor of growing importance in the life of societies.. if they do not yet spread over the whole of the manifestations of life.. it is that they find **an insurmountable obstacle in the poverty of the worker, in the casts of present society, in the private appropriation of capital, and in the sate.. abolish these obstacles and you will see them covering the immense field of civilized man’s activity
just need to org around legit needs
today groups scattered far/wide wish to org selves for some object or other.. where it is not possible to meet directly or come to an agreement by correspondence.. delegates versed in question at issue.. are sent to treat w the instructions: ‘come to an agreement then return not w law .. but w propositions of agreement which we may or may not accept’.. such should be the method of an emancipated society
oh my.. not emancipated if any form of m\a\p
4 – expropriation
what we do want is so to arrange things that every human being born into the world shall be ensured the opp in the first instance of learning some useful occupation.. next that he shall be free tow ork at his trade w/o asking leave of master/owners.. and w/o handing ove to landlord/capitlaist the linon’s share of what he produces..
oh my.. not about job ness.. thought already said this
critics: ‘you cannot bring about a revolution all over the world at the same time’.. critics
if all men/women in country side had their daily bread sure and their daily needs already satisfied, who would work for our capitalist at a wage of half a crown a day
even deeper.. org around legit needs
how to find men willing to (whatever) for a miserable pittance..? how? *because they are needy and starving.. hoping to be allowed to wrk on the vessels.. enter their homes, look at their wives/children in rags, living one know shot how till the father’s return.. and you will have the answer to the question.. everywhere you will find that the wealth of the wealthy springs from the poverty fo the poor.. this is why an anarchist society need not fear the advent of a rothschild who would settle in its midst.. if every member of the community knows that after a few hours of productive toil he will have a right to all the pleasure that civ produces.. he will not sell his strength for a starvation wage.. no one will volunteer to work for the enrichment of your rothschild..
we are afraid of not going far enough.. of carrying out expropriation on too small a scale to be lasting.. producing a tremendous confusion in society and stopping its customary activities would have no vita power.. would merely spread general discontent and inevitably prepare the way for the triumph of reaction
yeah.. part\ial ness as distraction
machinery so complex/interdependent that no one part can be modified w/o disturbing the whole..
the same result.. a terrible shattering of the industrial system w/o the means of reorganizing it on new lines..
need a legit re org.. ie: org around legit needs
all is interdependent in a civilized society; *it is impossible to reform any one thing w/o altering the whole.. on the day we strike at private property, under any one of its forms.. we shall be obliged to attack them all.. the very success of the revolution will demand it
*huge.. but then what follows is not all.. what follows is not even any.. rather.. it’s about fighting/demanding rather than a legit alt.. oi
all public property.. but articles of consumption.. food, clothes, and dwellings.. should remain private property..
our focus/obsession w f, c, s.. has not served us well.. not deep enough needs..
the civilized man needs a roof, a room, a hearth, and a bed.. it is true that the bed, the room and the house is a home of idleness for the non producer.. but for the worker, a room, properly heated/lighted is a as much an instrument of production as the tool or the machines.. it is the place where the nerves and sinews gather strength for the work of the morrow.. the rest of the workman is the daily repair of the machine
oh my.. what a disservice to bachelard oikos law et al.. oikos not dwelling of machine repair.. dreamer not worker..
same argument applies even more obviously to food.. same for clothing.. whether we like it or not.. this is what the people mean by a revolution.. as soon as they have made a clean sweep of the govt.. they will seek first of all to ensure to themselves decent dwellings and sufficient food and clothes.. free of capitalist rent.. and the people will be right.. the methods of the people will be much more in accordance w science than those of the economists.. the people understand that this is just the point where the revolution ought to begin.. and they will lay the foundations of the only econ science worthy the name.. a science which might be called: ‘the study of the needs of humanity and the econ means to satisfy them’..
oh my.. great description of whales needs.. but not legit/essence/being needs.. wrong econ/sci.. et al
5 – food
to attain a new end.. new means are required
yeah.. for sure.. beyond bread/food et al.. ie: org around legit needs
they discussed various political questions at great length, but forgot to discuss the question of bread.. people were starving in the slums.. want knocked at the door.. the commune indeed concerned itself w the question of bread.. and made heroic efforts to feed paris.. and still the people lacked bread..
this picture (of people growing weary and dying) is typical of all our revolutions..
neglected.. until too late.. to take measures for providing people w bread..
still wouldn’t be enough if all had bread.. still part ial
we have the temerity to declare that all have a right to bread.. that there is bread enough for all and that w this watchword of bread fro all the revolution will triumph..*not easy to keep the upper hand of a people whose hunger is satisfied
but actually *is (easy) if just talking food.. because food won’t ever fully satisfy.. need to address missing pieces et al
all the same, we maintain our contention: bread must be found for the people of the revolution, and the question of bread must take precedence of all other questions.. for in solving the question of bread we must accept the principle of equality.. which will force itself upon us to the exclusion of every other solution
but this *cannot be accomplished in a day or a month; it must take a certain time thus to reorg the system of production, and during this time millions of men will be deprived of the means of subsistence.. what then is to be done.. there is only one really practical solutions.. **reorg production on a new basis.. ie: people should take immediate possession of all the food of the insurgent districts.. **keeping strict account of it all.. that none might be wasted..
the coming revolution can render no greater service to humanity that to make the wage system.. in al tis forms, an impossibility..
yeah that.. but deeper.. any form of m\a\p
this point cannot be too much insisted upon.. the reorg of industry on a new basis (and we shall show how tremendous this problem is) .. cannot be accomplished in a few days nor on the other hand.. will the people submit to be half starved for years in order to oblige wage system.. to tide over the period of stress they will demand .. communization of supplies.. the giving of rations..
and that admirable spirit of org inherent in people .. which they have so seldom been allowed to exercise.. will initiate.. an immense guild of free workers.. ready to furnish toe each an all the necessary food..
yeah.. but deeper org.. ie: in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’ –Dana Meadows.. if we org around legit needs
only those who have never seen the people hard at work, only those who have passed their lives buried among documents, can doubt it..
*but upon what basis must society be org’d in order that all may share and share alike?..t this is the question that meets us at the outset.. we answer that there are no two ways of it.. there is only one way in which communism can be established equitably.. the system already adopted by the agrarian communes of europe.. ie: so long as plenty .. everyone can take as much as wants.. in a word, the system is this: no stint or limit to what the community possesses in abundance.. but equal sharing/dividing of those commodities which are scarce or apt to run short..t but what if water were actually scarce.. recourse would be had to a system of rations.. such a measure is so natural, so inherent in common sense..
not what the page explains.. what page explain is not legit inherent common sense..
rather.. we need to *org around legit needs.. because when we grok enough ness ..there will be no scarcity
if the entire nation or better still if all of europe should accomplish the social revolution *simultaneously and start w thorough going communism, our procedure would be simplified..t but if only a few communities in europe make the attempt, other means will have to be chosen.. such a universal rising would do much to simplify the task of our century.. **but all the signs lead us to believe that it will not t.. take place.. whether the revolution would everywhere exhibit the same characteristics is doubtful..
the revolution will take a diff character in each of diff nations.. will it therefore be necessary.. that nation in the vanguard of the moment should adapt their pace to those who lag behind..? must we wait till the communist revolution is ripe in all civilized countries? clearly not.. even it if it were a thing to be desired *it is not possible.. history does not wait for the laggards.. besides.. we do not believe that in any one country the revolution will be accomplished at a stroke, in the twinkling of an eye.. as some socialists dream..
all that is needed is that the public mind should be thoroughly convinced of the necessity of this transformation,..t and should come to look upon it as an act of justice and of progress, and that it should no longer allow itself to be cheated by that dream.. so dear to social theorists.. the dream of a revolution which confines itself to taking possession of the profits of industry, and leaves production and commerce just as they are now.. this then is our view of the whole question.. cheat the peasant no longer w scarps of paper.. be the sums inscribed upon them ever so large.. but offer him in exchange for his produce the every things of which he, the tiller of the soil .. stands in need..
*this is already.. if deeper transformation (ie: org around legit needs).. no convincing needed.. already what each soul craves.. so rather.. an uncovering/restoring.. already and always.. on each heart..
but rest of words.. are evidence that ‘transformation’ being suggested here not deep enough to get to the point of ie: simplicity, and all that is needed ness..
let the revolution only get so far, and famine is not the enemy it will have to fear.. the danger which will menace it lies in timidity, prejudice and half measure.. t
6 – dwellings
of course the good folk in new uniforms seating in the official arm chairs.. will be sure to busy selves in heaping up obstacles.. they will talk of giving compensation to the landlords, of preparing stats, and drawing up long reports.. yes.. reports long enough to outlast the hopes of the people.. who, after waiting and starving in enforced idleness, and seeing nothing come of all these official researches, would lose heart and faith in the revolution and abandon the field to the reactionaries.. but if the people turn a deaf ear to the specious arguments used to dazzle them.. and realize that *new life needs new conditions..
man will accomplish greater things, and accomplish them better and by simpler methods than those dictated to him beforehand
the people commit blunder on blunder when they have to choose by ballot some hare brained candidate who solicits the honour of representing them, and takes upon himself to know all, to do all, and to org all.. but when they take upon themselves to org what they know, what touches them directly, they do it better than all the ‘taking shops’ put together.. is not the paris commune an instance in point? and the great dockers’ strike? and *have we not constant evidence of this fact in every village commune?
not legit ‘evidence’.. because we never let go enough of ie: any form of democratic admin.. any form of m\a\p.. so rather than ie ing ways.. we perpetuate the doubting of free human being ness.. from myth of tragedy and lord
7 – clothing
it is just to wash the earth clean, to sweep away the shards and refuse, accumulated by centuries of slavery and oppression, that the new anarchist society will have need of this wave of brotherly love.. later on it can exist w/o appealing to the spirits of self sacrifice, because it will have eliminated oppression, and thus *created a new world instinct w all the feelings of solidarity
8 – ways and means
9 – need for luxury
after bread has been secured, leisure is the supreme aim
backwards.. rather.. no order.. it’s a dance
nowadays when 100s and 1000s of human beings are in need of bread, coal, clothing and shelter, luxury is a crime.. to satisfy it the worker’s child must go w/o bread.. but in a society in which all can eat sufficiently the needs which we consider luxuries today will be the more keenly felt.. and as all men do not and cannot resemble one another (the variety of tastes and needs is the chief guarantee of human progress) there will always be and it is desirable that there should always be, men/women whose desire will go beyond those of ordinary individuals in some particular direction
he will discharge first his task in the field, the factory and so on.. which he owes to society as his contribution to the general production.. and he will employ the second half of his day, his week, or his year, to satisfy his artistic or scientific needs or his hobbies
oi.. so backwards and messed up.. killing us softly w its song..
but when there will be no more starvelings ready to sell their work for a pittance when the exploited worker of today will be *educated and will have his own ideas to put down in black and white and to communicate to others, then the authors and scientific men will be compelled to combine among themselves and with the printers in order to bring out their prose and their poetry
maybe some books will be less voluminous; but then, more will be said on fewer pages.. maybe fewer waste sheets will be publishes; but the matter printed will be more attentively read and more appreciated.. the book will appeal to a larger circle of better educated readers, who will be more competent to judge..
in short.. 5-7 hours a day which each will have at his disposal, after having consecrated several hours of the production of necessities, will amply suffice to satisfy all longings for luxury however varied.. *every one would be the happier for it.. in the collective work, performed w a light heart to attain a desired end.. a book a work of art, or an object of luxury, each will find an incentive, and the **necessary realization that makes life pleasant
10 – agreeable work
*they prefer isolated apartments.. even going as far as to prefer houses of from 6-8 rooms, in which the family, or an agglomeration of friends, can live apart.. isolation, alternating w time spent in society is the normal desire of human nature.. **the most important econ, the only reasonable one, is to make life pleasant for all, because the man who is satisfied w his life produces infinitely more than the man who curses his surroundings.. t
*rp ness and **oikos (the economy our souls crave).. ‘i should say: the house shelters day-dreaming, the house protects the dreamer, the house allows one to dream in peace.’ – gaston bachelard, the poetics of space
end notes: the idea of religious communists has always been to have means in common.. young icarians had given up this religious tradition.. they dined in a common dining room, but at small separate tables.. at which they sat *according to the attractions of the moment.. the communists of amana have each their house and dine at home, while taking their provisions at will at the communal stores
why in every fam are the mother and 3-4 servants obliged to spend so much time at what pertains to cooking.. because those who want to emancipate mankind have not included woman in their dream of emancipation.. *to emancipate woman is not only to open the gates of the university, the law courts, or the parliaments, for her, for the ’emancipated’ woman will always throw domestic toil on to another woman.. to emancipate woman is to free her from the brutalizing toil of kitchen and washhouse; it is to organize your household in such a way as to enable her to rear her children, if she be so minded, while still retaining sufficient leisure to take her share of social life..
it will come to pass.. as we have said, things are already improving.. only let us fully understand that a revolution, intoxicated w the beautiful words liberty, equality, solidarity *would not be a revolution if it maintained slavery at home..t.. half humanity subject to the slavery of the hearth would still have to rebel against the other half
11 – free agreement
we have come to believe that man would tear his fellow man to pieces like a wild beast the day the police took his eye off him.. that chaos would come about if authority were overthrown during revolution.. and w our eyes shut we pass by 1000s and 1000s of human groupings which form themselves freely, w/o any intervention of the law and attain results infinitely superior to those achieved under govt tutelage..
daily paper.. pages entirely devoted to govt transaction and to political jobbery.. a chinaman reading it would believe that in europe nothing gets done save by order of some master.. you find nothing in them about institutions that spring up, grow up and develop w/o ministerial prescription.. even when there is a heading ‘sundry events’ it is because they are connected w the police.. a family drama, an act of rebellion, will only be mentioned if the police have appeared on the scene..
somewhere (lots of wheres) in david’s writings.. i think utopia of rules.. also to m of care – feb 7 on pirates.. and rediker saying no history/notice unless police involved.. this is why it’s important to undo our hierarchical listening.. so that we know/see with hearts and not with books/training/ed
and we do not even perceive the prodigious work accomplished every day by spontaneous groups of men, which constitutes the chief work of our century.. we therefore propose to point out some of these most striking manifestations, and to prove that men, as soon as their interests do not absolutely clash, act in concert, harmoniously and perform collective work of a very complex nature
but what concerns us is not to give ie’s which we could blindly follow, and which more over, present society could not possibly give us.. what we have to do is to prove that, in spite of the authoritarian individualism which stifles us, there remains in our life, taken as a whole, a great part in which we only act by free agreement, and that it would be much easier than we think to dispense w govt.. t
12 – objections
the waste of human energy is the distinguishing and predominant trait of industry, not to mention trade where it attains still more colossal proportions.. what a sad satire is that name.. political econ.. given to the science of waste of energy under the system of wagedom.. t
if a huxley spend only 5 hrs in he sewers of london.. rest assured that he would have found the means of making them as sanitary as his physiological lab..
they say laziness or crime, w/o giving themselves the trouble to analyze their cause.. they are in hast to punish them, w/o inquiring if the punishment itself does not contain a premium on ‘laziness’ or ‘crime’
your school becomes a uni of laziness.. your prison a uni of crime
13 – collective wages system
while speaking of abolishing capitalist rule, they (collectivists) intend nevertheless to retain two institutions which are the very basis of this rule – rep govt and the wages system..
collectivists begin by proclaiming a revolutionary principle.. the abolition of private property.. then they deny it no sooner than proclaimed by upholding an org of production and consumption that originated in private property
hardt/negri property law et al
well.. to establish this distinction would be to maintain all the ineq’s of present society.. it would mean fixing a dividing line, from the beginning, between the workers and those who pretend to govern them.. it would mean dividing society into two very distinct classes.. the aristocracy of knowledge above the horny handed lower orders.. the one doomed o serve the other; the one working w hands to feed/clothe whose who, profiting by their leisure, study how to govern their fosterers.. it would mean reviving one of the distinct peculiarities of present society and giving it the sanction fo the social revolution.. it would mean setting up as a principle an abuse already condemned in our ancient crumpling society..
therefore we say that all wages theories have been invented after the event to justify injustices at present existing, and that we need not take them into consideration..
and we say ‘down w the privileges of ed, as well as w those of birth’.. we are anarchists precisely because these privileges revolt us.. they revolt us already in this authoritarian society.. could we endure them in a society that began by proclaiming equality? that is why some collectivist, understanding the impossibility of maintaining a scale of wages in a society inspired by the breath of the revolution, hasten to proclaim equality of wage..
the collectivists say ‘*to each according to his deeds‘.. to his share of services rendered to society.. we think if social rev had the misfortune of proclaiming such a principle it would mean its necessary failure.. it would mean leaving h social problem.. unsolved.. perpetuation of past injustice.. **because from the moment work done was appraised in currency or in any other form of wage; the day it was agreed upon that man would only receive the wage he could secure to himself.. the whole history of state aided capitalist society was as good as written; it geminated in this principle..
we may roughly say that the man who during his lifetime has deprived himself of leisure during 10 hrs a day has given far more to society that the one who has only deprived himself of leisure during 5 hrs a day.. or who has not deprived himself at all.. but we cannot take what he has done during 2 hrs and say that the yield is worth twice as much as the yield of another individual..and remunerate him in proportion..
rather.. depriving self/anyone of leisure is cancer to society..
and we may say that all have the right to live, to satisfy their needs, and even their whims, when the *necessaries of life have feen secured for all.. but how can we appraise their work
no, distinction can be drawn between the work of each man.. measuring the work by its results leads us to absurdity; dividing/measuring them by hours spent on the work also leads us to absurdity.. one thing remains: put the needs above the works.. and first of all recognize the right to live and later on.. to the comforts of life.. *for all those who take their share in production..
*oi.. huge red flag
which of us can claim the higher remuneration for his work? is it the dr who has found out the illness, or the nurse who has brought about recovery by her hygienic care?..
can not each one of us recall some one who has rendered hims so great a service that we should be indignant if its equiv in coin were mentioned? the service may have been but a word.. spoken at the right time.. or.. months/yrs of devotion.. and ar ewe going to appraise these ‘incalculable’ services in ‘labour notes’?
if middle class society is decaying.. if we have got into a blind alley from which we cannot emerge w/o attacking past institutions w torch and hatchet.. *it is precisely because we have calculated too much.. because we have let ourselves be influenced into giving only to receive.. we have aimed at turning society into a commercial company based on debit and credit.. t
collectivists know this. they vaguely understand that a society could not exist if it carried out the principle of ‘each according to his deeds’.. they are eager to temper their principle.. they say ‘society will not fail to maintain and bring up its children’ to help both aged and infirm.. w/o doubt needs will be the measure of the cost that society will burden itself w.. to temper the principle of deeds‘.. charity charity, always christian charity, org’d by the state this time.. they believe in improving asylums for foundlings, in effecting old age and sick insurances.. so as to temper their principles.. but they cannot yet throw aside the idea of ‘wounding first and healing afterwards’
not only not enough (unless legit needs).. but cancerous
even the stepmother of society.. she too, after having paid the hours of labour, shelters the children of those she has wrecked.. she takes their needs in consideration and doles out charity.. t
oi.. us.. crazy us
for the day on which old institutions will fall under the proletarian axe, voices will cry out: ‘*bread, shelter, ease for all‘.. the people will say: ‘let us begin by allaying our thirst for life, for happiness/liberty.. that we have never quenched.. and when we shall have tasted of this **joy we will set to work to demolish the last vestiges of middle class rule.. its morality drawn from account books.. its ‘debit and credit’ philosophy,.. its ‘mine and yours’ institution.. ‘in demolishing we shall build’ as proudhon said; and we shall build the name of communism and anarchy’
14 – consumption and production
looking at a society and its political org from a *diff standpoint than that of authoritarian schools.. for we **start from a freed individual to reach a free society, instead of beginning by the state to come down to the individual.. we follow the same method in econ questions.. ***we study needs of individuals, and the means by which they satisfy them.. before discussing production, exchange, taxation, govt, et al.. to begin with, the ****diff may appear trifling, but in reality it upsets official political economy
*but not diff enough
**if only.. rather.. that’s something we’ve not yet tried
****yeah.. but we have no idea what that means.. we keep missing it
before producing anything, must you not feel the need of it? it is not the study of needs that should govern production? it would therefore be quite as logical to begin by considering needs *and afterwards to discuss the means of production in order to satisfy these needs.. this is precisely what we mean to do
if look at it from this pov.. political econ entirely changes its aspect.. ceases to be a simple description of facts and becomes a science.. we can define it as: the study of the needs of humanity, and the means of satisfying them w the least possible waste of human energy.. its true name should be.. physiology of society..
again.. to 2nd half of red.. irrelevant if legit needs.. ie: if we focus on means to satisfy.. we compromise the dance
arriving at the same conclusion, that *production is insufficient to satisfy all needs.. a conclusion which if true.. does not answer the question: ‘can or cannot man by his labour produce the bread he needs? and if he cannot, **what is hindering him‘
*production isn’t just insufficient.. it’s cancerous.. norton productivity law et al
**focus on non legit needs (and production) ie: bread.. hierarchical listening is hindering him
if the most imperious (domineering) needs of man remain unsatisfied, what must he do to increase the productivity of his work? might it be that *production, having lost sight of the the needs of man, has strayed in an absolutely wrong direction.. and that its **org is at fault.. as we can prove that such is the case.. let us see how to ***reorg productions so as to really satisfy all needs..t.. this seems to us the only right way of facing things.. the only way that would allow of political econ becoming a science.. the science of social physiology
15 – division of labour
and smith hastened to the conclusion ‘divide labour, specialize, go on specializing; let us have smiths who only know how to make heads or points of nails, and by this means we shall produce more.. we shall grow rich’.. the smith sentenced for life to the making of heads of nails would lose all interest in his work..
they did not say to themselves that by a lifelong grind at one and the same mechanical toil the worker would lose his intelligence and his spirit of invention.. ideas taught by drs of science filter into men’s minds and pervert them.. and from repeatedly hearing the division of labour, profits, interest, credit, etc.. spoken of as problem long since solved, men, and worker too, end by arguing like economists..and by venerating the same fetishes.. so many socialists.. justifying the division of labour.. ie: born to sharpen pins
on (one/any) purpose as killer
division of labour means labelling and stamping men for life.. t
16 – decentralization of industry
this diversity is the surest pledge of the complete development of production by mutual co op and the moving cause of progress, while specialization is a hindrance to progress.. agri can only prosper in proximity to factories..and no sooner does a single factory appear than an infinite variety of other factories must spring up around, so that, mutually supporting and stimulating one another by their inventions, they increase their productivity
oi.. sounds like the unresonating words m of care – feb 10.. about novel (?) emerging from noise from interactions of diversity ..
in the world of production everything holds together nowadays.. cultivation of the soil is no longer possible w/o machinery.. w/o great irrigation works, w/o railways, w/o manure factories.. and to adapt this machinery, the railways, the irrigation engines, etc.. to local conditions, a certain spirit of invention , a certain amount of tech skill, that lie dormant as long as spades and ploughshares are the only implements of cultivation, must be developed.. if fields are to be properly cultivated, and are to yield the abundant harvests man has the right to expect, it is essential that workshops, foundries, and factories develop w/in the reach of the fields.. a variety of occupations/skill arising therefrom end working together for a common aim.. these are the genuine forces of progress
we think that when the stores are empty, the masses will seek to obtain their food from the land.. they will be compelled to cultivate the soil, to combine agri production w industrial production in paris and its environs.. they will have to abandon the merely ornamental trades and consider the most urgent need – bread
a revolution is more than the destruction of apolitical system. it implies the awakening of human intell.. the increasing of the inventive spirit tenfold, a hundredfold; it is the dawn of a new, science.. the science of men like laplace, lamarck, lavoisier.. it is a revolution the minds of men, more than in their institutions..
and economist tell us to return to our workshops, as if passing thru a revolution were going home after walking the epping forest.. should paris, during the social rev.. be cut off from the world for a year or two.. that city of little trades which stimulate the spirit fo invention.. will show the world what man’s brain can accomplish w/o asking any help from w/o.. but the.. sun.. light, the power of the wind .. the silent life forces at work in the earth.. we shall see then what a variety of trades, mutually cooperating on a spot of the globe and animated by the social rev can do to feed, clothe house an supply w all manner of luxuries millions of intell men..
we need write no fiction to prove this.. what we are sure of, what has already been experimented upon, and recognized as practical would suffice to carry it int effect, if the attempt were fertilized, vivified by the daring inspiration of the rev and the spontaneous impulse of the masses
just need to be free.. let’s do this first
17 – agriculture
that will make 25 work day s of 5 hours in all.. nothing more that a little pleasurable country exercise.. to obtain the three principal products bread, meat, and milk.. the three products which, after housing, cause daily anxiety to 9/10 of mankind
indeed.. lacking to most people.. but those aren’t the deeper needs we need to org around.. in order for us to get back/to enough ness
mr ponce, and esp his workmen, work like niggers..
if only humanity had the consciousness of what it can, and if that consciousness only gave it the power to will.. if it only knew that cowardice of the spirit is the rock on which all revolutions have stranded until now
happy crowds of occasional labourers will cover these acres w crops, guided in the work and experiments partly by those who know agri, but esp by the great/practical spirit of a people roused from long slumber and illumined by the bright beacon.. the happiness of all.. and in 2-3 months the early crops will relieve the most pressing wants and provide food for a people who after so many centuries of expectation.. will at least be able to appease their hunger and eat according to their appetite..
in the meanwhile, popular genius, the genius of a nation which revolts and knows its wants.. light.. concentrated or artificial.. will rival heat in hastening the growth of plants.. a mouchot of the future will invent a machine to guid the rays of the sun and make them work, so that we shall no longer seek sun heat stored in coal in the depths of the earth..
let us limit ourselves at present to opening up the new path that consists in the study of the needs of man and the means of satisfying them..
the only thing that maybe wanting to the rev is the boldness of initiative.. w our minds already narrowed in our youth, enslaved by the past in our mature age and till the grave.. we hardly dare to think.. if a new idea is mentioned.. before venturing on an opinion of our own, we consult musty books a hundred yrs old.. to know what ancient masters thought on the subject.. it is not food that will fail.. if boldness of thought an initiative are not wanting to the rev..
henceforth, able to conceive solidarity.. that immense power which increases man’s energy and creative forces a hundredfold..
a society thus inspired will fear neither dissensions w/in nor enemies w/o.. to the coalitions of the past it will oppose new harmony, the initiative of each and all, the daring which springs form the awakening of a people’s genius.. before such an irresistible force ‘conspiring kings’ will be powerless..